Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision in case No. 922/3937/25:
1. The subject matter of the dispute was the invalidation of supplementary agreements to an electricity procurement contract and the recovery of funds paid under these agreements due to the alleged unjustified increase in the unit price exceeding the 10% limit established by law.
2. In rendering its decision, the Supreme Court was guided by the fact that the lower courts had erroneously applied the general 10% limitation on price changes provided for in Clause 2, Part 5 of Article 41 of the Law “On Public Procurement.” The Court emphasized that in this case, the parties to the contract had clearly agreed upon a formula-based pricing mechanism linked to the weighted average prices on the “day-ahead” market. This procedure is regulated by Subparagraph 7 of Clause 19 of the “Peculiarities of Public Procurement” (CMU Resolution No. 1178), which is a special provision for the period of martial law. The Supreme Court noted that this mechanism is independent and does not provide for a 10% limitation on price changes, as the price changes automatically depending on market indicators. Consequently, the parties’ actions in signing the supplementary agreements complied with the terms of the contract and the requirements of the legislation in effect at that time. The Court effectively distinguished the grounds for changing the contract price, indicating that the 10% limitation does not apply to cases of price changes due to fluctuations in weighted average prices on the “day-ahead” market, provided that such procedure is expressly stipulated in the contract.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the lower courts regarding the satisfaction of the claim and rendered a new decision to fully dismiss the claim.
